That is the point at issue.its not exporting its laws. It’s enforcing its own laws within its own borders which the eu , or any country, is entitled to do.
the eu is perfectly entitled to ensure products sold within the eu comply with its only health & safety laws for example. If that was not a basic premise what would be the point of having any standards if they could just be ignored?
That is the point at issue.
For example, the EU are currently adopting an extreme version of the precautionary principle under which any product subjected to any substance which can cause cancer even only at huge concentrations cannot be sold in the EU. But hundreds of products fall into this category e.g. alcohol. Whether this policy is legal under WTO rules or is so onerous as to act as a non tariff barrier is moot. Hence the actions to settle this point.
The issue has a long history. Google 'wto precautionary principle' just to see the mountain of papers on the subject.I didn’t know that. Thx
Let me explain mate.
I don't have a misunderstanding.
If there are new or modified EU standards it is of course true that companies can agree to implement them.
That will mean checks at the border and additional paperwork because there will be no automatic flow through of goods as is the case now, also companies will have to agree to EU regs (obviously) and be subject to EU (not UK) law as regards that supply. There may also be pre supply checks ( one off maybe or more?).
So yes it's possible, I never said it wasn't.
It makes trade more difficult and costly particularly ( price tariffs maybe and non tariff barriers definitely) when goods move from one EU country to another and back again.
I used the words "hence non tariff barriers will apply or we will be unable to supply into that market".you used the words
“we will unable to supply into that market “ [sic]
I used the words "hence non tariff barriers will apply or we will be unable to supply into that market".
Not I admit the clearest of statements but nevertheless your quote in isolation is misleading.
its not exporting its laws. It’s enforcing its own laws within its own borders which the eu , or any country, is entitled to do.
the eu is perfectly entitled to ensure products sold within the eu comply with its only health & safety laws for example. If that was not a basic premise what would be the point of having any standards if they could just be ignored?
I've kept to the same argument I always have.
It's you who keeps changing the argument to something else. Where in the post do I say "A deal will be easy" in those exact words? You've interpreted it that way, in fact I made no mention whatsoever about a deals "simplicity".
I was stating how can it be so, that a lovely, cuddly EU, who are our friends, would want to punish the UK, one of it's longest, cuddliest friends, over such a benign matter such as leaving which every member is entitled to enact?
It's almost as if some people are now saying that the EU aren't our friends after all, if they now seek to "punish" us!
TL;DR I was taking the piss out of those who used to say "the EU are our friends..." and are now saying "the EU will seek to punish us!" True "friends" don't punish one another, they seek a compromise to their differences.
Why would any country affecting a trade deal submit itself to the EU's jurisdiction?You are aware that we are pulling out of the ECJ ? Without a dispute resolution mechanism there will be NO free trade agreement.
You are aware that we are pulling out of the ECJ ? Without a dispute resolution mechanism there will be NO free trade agreement.
So which body will we submit any dispute to?Why would any country affecting a trade deal submit itself to the EU's jurisdiction?
So which body will we submit any dispute to?
our own courts.
Our own courts are world leaders In resolving international disputes . Whether that’s a dispute between a Australian company and a Russian company. We do it all the time.
I haven't come across that many on here yet.There are better reasons for leaving than semantics mate.
That is simply not true.
You have got to stop posting falsehoods.
To (nearly) Quote @AncientCitizen 'Why would any country affecting a trade deal submit itself to the UK's jurisdiction? see the problem?
Are you talking about contracts between companies, or a trade deal between the UK and other countries? We don't have any of the latter at the moment so I assume you mean just commercial contracts.our own courts.
Our own courts are world leaders In resolving international disputes . Whether that’s a dispute between a Australian company and a Russian company. We do it all the time.
So which body will we submit any dispute to?
And its dispute resolution mechanism is in disarray because Trump won't appoint judges.Everyone is a member of the WTO.
What do you think one of their main roles is?
You mean like Canada and Japan haven't managed to agree a trade agreement?You are aware that we are pulling out of the ECJ ? Without a dispute resolution mechanism there will be NO free trade agreement.
And its dispute resolution mechanism is in disarray because Trump won't appoint judges.
Do you really not know stuff before you post?